Your Thread – August 12

Here’s Tuesday’s thread.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to


91 thoughts on “Your Thread – August 12

  1. Hi everyone! Been absent for a few, new grandbaby arrived yesterday morning. He is precious! Busy days ahead, I’ll be back when the dust settles.

  2. Hello everyone,

    I just wanted to pick up on two things mentioned yesterday.

    The first is Noway’s point on the GJ. Paula and Lenny would have to testify that they made the tapes, that it was DP’s voice on them, and when the tape took place. They would not have to do this for every tape, just ones that would be needed to get an indictment. They would also have to testify to the correctness of any transcipts that were made. Given the time factor of how long this was going on this could take anywhere from one to three days of testimony in front of the GJ, depending on how damaging the information is on the tapes.

    Second as to what Bucket said about the 28th, I agree. The state would rather arrest someone after they are in the courthouse on a unrelated charge. It saves them from going out to make an arrest and they know the suspect is disarmed.

    The only thing about this is the story broke in the Sun-Times on July 23, and DP was at the courthouse on the 30th and nothing happened.
    That’s why I asked if anybody knew if Lenny and Paula had appeared before the GJ.

  3. “The state would rather arrest someone after they are in the courthouse on a unrelated charge. It saves them from going out to make an arrest and they know the suspect is disarmed.”

    Is there a precedent for this? I’m only asking because I don’t know.

  4. Hiya facs

    I don’t know either. I only suggested it because I thought it would be the safest way. (it’s what I’d do)

  5. Facsmiley – I don’t know the answer to that either, but it makes sense to me that Peterson getting arrested while in the Will County Courthouse would be a lot safer for the arresting officers if he was known to be without a weapon. He just might have access to one that he shouldn’t. 👿 He’s not trustworthy, and he’s nuts.

    Aside from that, waving hi.

  6. It would definitely be more convenient for them to pick him up while he was in the courthouse and has gone through a metal detector. Plus the kids wouldn’t be with him so there would be no fear of him harming them.

    My gut still says they won’t arrest him this soon unless Stacy’s body appears in a location where his cell phone had pinged. JMO.

  7. think – why do you think they won’t arrest him without Stacy’s body? I think they might wait to arrest him for those charges, but only because they’ll arrest and charge him for Kathleen’s murder first. Soon. There’s been so much focus on Stacy’s disappearance/presumed murder, that I think we tend to forget they probably have the goods on him for Kathleen’s death. And a body. They may not find Stacy’s intact body, but I don’t think that LE has any fears of arresting and charging Peterson for Stacy’s disappearance/presumed murder.

    LE already knows the details of Kathleen’s death and has probably gathered extensive evidence. In fact, if you think about it, the potential Hearsay Law is just as valuable in Kathleen’s case. Kathleen wrote letters, told individuals, that her ex was out to kill her. Hearsay. She’s not here to validate that, of course, because the idea is that her ex killed her, thus, the necessity of relying on others’ testimony, or hearsay. Along with timelines, evidence, records.

    Yes, Stacy allegedly told others that she was afraid of Drew and afraid that he might kill her, but that fear seems to be recent, based on her threatening to expose him for Kathleen’s murder, and her desire to divorce him.
    He can be charged with Kathleen’s death, yet, they’ll be able to continue to investigate Stacy’s disappearance. I don’t know the logistics, but I doubt they’d combine these two matters into one trial.

    If he’s charged, tried and convicted of Kathleen’s murder, he rots in jail, just the same. If, for whatever reason, he is found not guilty, then he would still have to answer to charges regarding Stacy’s death.

    Not to mention he has shady probate matters to contend with, a weapons violation to defend. He’s toast.

  8. Rescue – It is just my gut feeling because of the fact that they certainly want to get a solid conviction and there is no statute of limitations for a murder case. There are many examples of people that the LE considers the only suspect in a crime yet charges are never filed or are filed many years later. It is just the way our system works.

    Without the hearsay law, many of the things you mention are not admissable in court. Even with that law passing there are possibilities that it will be appealed for years if he is found guilty on grounds that the law is unconstitutional. It’s not what I want to happen – it is just my gut feeling.

    I’d tend to agree that they wouldn’t combine these cases yet doesn’t that sometimes create a more compelling prosecution? I don’t know who choses the way that is done.

    I also tend to agree that they will charge him with Kathleen Savio’s murder first. They could argue that they have a body, a motive (the pending financial settlement of the divorce), a means (he no longer has his alibi available to testify on his behalf), the original emergency order of protection documentation, her letter to the SA (if the hearsay law passes), the ex-fiance’s testimony, and him talking on tape saying things such as he wished he had her cremated could possibly be enough to satisify the jury’s reasonable doubt test.

    In reality though – only time will tell and we can only wait to see what happens.

  9. thinkaboutit2 said: Without the hearsay law, many of the things you mention are not admissable in court. Even with that law passing there are possibilities that it will be appealed for years if he is found guilty on grounds that the law is unconstitutional.


    Ah, yes, think, but IF he is convicted, he may be rotting in jail while it takes years to appeal. 🙂

  10. Rescue – I feel mean having to break this bubble but sometimes even people convicted of murder are released pending appeals. They call it an appeal bond.

    I’m not trying to be mean so I hope you don’t take it that way. Here are some links to show you that it does happen:

  11. think – there is no reason to think that you’re being mean or bubble busting, LOL. Really. You are certainly respectful and considerate. I understand what you mean.

    As to him getting out on bond pending an appeal, I don’t even want to think that far ahead. But, honestly, this whole investigation has been going on for so long and so methodically, I don’t think there’s any worry that he’d get out of a parking ticket, let alone get out on bond after a conviction. 🙂

  12. I don’t see any reason for dwelling on the ‘what ifs’ that could happen after a conviction (and certianly no reason to get baleful or apologetic for bringing it up). I’m not even sure we’ll get that far since there haven’t even been charges yet. On the same token, I can’t imagine anyone taking offense at the prospect since we can only talk in the hypothetical at this point.

    The whole process is a fascinating one and I think it’s to the State’s credit that they haven’t rushed to charge if they lack evidence. I can accept that they may never have enough to charge, but I also hope that there is still evidence to be gathered, as well as existing evidence of which we lay-people are in ignorance.

  13. Facs – I was just pointing out that sometimes it is easy to think this is an open-and-close case. In reality it is very complex and as you mentioned the State is certainly not folding to public pressure to rush the case – which is a wise move IMO.

    I only pre-apologized because sometimes things come out different in type and I didn’t want anyone to think I was bashing their opinion. It’s all good though.

    Patience is a most definitely a necessity in following this case and some other recent cases that are in the news.

  14. Press releases from James Glasgow, State Attorney General of Will County Il. on the Peterson Case.


    January 24, 2008


    Statement on the status of Stacy Peterson, Kathleen Savio investigations

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    The following is a statement from the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office regarding the status of the Stacy Peterson and Kathleen Savio investigations:

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office has been working closely with the Illinois State Police Investigative Task Forces that are investigating the disappearance of Stacy Peterson and the death of Kathleen Savio. The task forces have notified the state’s attorney’s office that they have investigated more than 1,900 tips and leads since this investigation began in late October. The task forces continue to investigate these top priority cases utilizing all available resources.

    At the same time, the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office has convened a Special Grand Jury to investigate Stacy Peterson’s disappearance and Kathleen Savio’s death. The Special Grand Jury was convened in November and is in session and working each Thursday. It will continue to meet for roughly the next four months with an option to extend its service for another six-month term should that become necessary.

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office remains confident that justice will be served at the conclusion of these methodical and disciplined investigations.

    Anyone with information regarding the disappearance of Stacy Peterson or the death of Kathleen Savio is asked to contact the Illinois State Police Investigative Task Forces Office at (815) 740-0678 or e-mail the office at


    February 21, 2008


    Pathologist declares Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow announced today that his office has received the final report on the autopsy performed on the remains of Kathleen S. Savio on Nov. 13, 2007.

    Dr. Larry W. Blum, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, concludes in his report that the actual cause of Kathleen Savio’s death was drowning and that the legal manner of death was homicide. Dr. Blum’s report was delivered to the Will County Coroner’s Office on Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008 and immediately forwarded to the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and the Illinois State Police.

    “Dr. Blum’s forensic report renders his expert opinion that this is a homicide,” State’s Attorney Glasgow said. “We have been investigating this as a murder since reopening the case in November of last year. We now have a scientific basis to formally and publicly classify it as such.”

    The complete autopsy report is a component of the investigation into the March 1, 2004 death of Kathleen Savio and will not be released. However, the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and the Illinois State Police are releasing the following quote from the conclusion in Dr. Blum’s report:

    “It is my opinion based on my education, training, experience and personal observations, and to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty, compelling evidence exists to support the conclusions that the cause of death of Kathleen S. Savio was drowning and further, that the manner of death was homicide.”

    This was the second autopsy performed on Kathleen Savio’s remains. The first was performed shortly after her death in March 2004. Her body was exhumed on the morning of Nov. 13, 2007, and Dr. Blum performed the second autopsy that afternoon.

    In his report, Dr. Blum notes that he reviewed photos taken from the scene at the time of Kathleen Savio’s death as well as reports of the initial scene investigation. He also carefully examined the physical location of Kathleen Savio’s death on Nov. 20, 2007 as part of his investigation.

    His report includes the results of microscopic examinations and toxicological tests conducted on postmortem tissue specimens. The specimens examined by Dr. Blum were collected during the first autopsy on March 2, 2004, the second autopsy performed by Dr. Blum on Nov. 13, 2007, and a third autopsy performed by Dr. Michael Baden on behalf of Kathleen Savio’s family on Nov. 16, 2007.

    The results of those examinations and tests are part of the investigation and are not being disclosed at this time.

    The Illinois State Police are investigating the murder of Kathleen Savio as well as the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. Kathleen Savio’s murder and Stacy Peterson’s disappearance are simultaneously being investigated by a Special Grand Jury that was convened in November 2007.


    February 27, 2008


    Drew Peterson’s FOID card revoked

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office announces that it received confirmation from the Illinois Department of State Police on Wednesday that it has revoked the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card of Drew W. Peterson.

    The Illinois Department of State Police confirmed that the department sent a letter to Mr. Peterson on Wednesday informing him of the revocation. Mr. Peterson’s attorney also has been notified.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow on Tuesday sent a letter to State Police Director Larry G. Trent requesting that his department exercise its authority under 430 Illinois Compiled Statutes 65/8 to revoke Mr. Peterson’s FOID card. Neither the letter from State’s Attorney Glasgow nor the Illinois Department of State Police will be released.


    *Hearsay Bill*

    April 15, 2008


    Glasgow, Wilhelmi promote bill to allow statements at trial from witnesses who are killed, threatened by defendants

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow and State Senator A.J. Wilhelmi announce that they are working on legislation that would eliminate the incentive for criminals in Illinois to kill, threaten or bribe witnesses to prevent them from testifying at trial.

    The legislation proposed in SB2718 would allow prosecutors to enter into evidence the relevant statements from witnesses who were killed, threatened or bribed to stop them from testifying.

    Under the proposed legislation, criminal defendants could no longer profit at trial from their illegal activities by claiming that the statements from witnesses they silenced are hearsay. The proposed Senate bill borrows from a federal rule that has assisted prosecutors in pursuing organized crime and drug cartel cases involving criminals who killed, threatened or bribed witnesses to silence them.

    “Prosecutors at the federal level and in other states have used this rule of evidence to secure convictions against the most dangerous criminals,” Glasgow said. “This legislation will clarify the rule of evidence in Illinois to prevent defendants from escaping justice by murdering or intimidating a witness.”

    “Under the state’s current rule of evidence, violent criminals in Illinois can profit from their illegal actions simply by silencing the witnesses against them,” Sen. Wilhelmi said. “The legislation I am proposing will clarify this rule and bring it into the 21st Century.”

    The legislation would not affect a defendant’s due process rights. Prosecutors in Illinois will have to argue and prove in advance to a judge that the rule would apply to any statements they hope to enter into evidence.

    This doctrine has been made into law in more than a dozen other states, among them Maryland, California, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont and Hawaii. Most of these states have simply adopted the federal rule. Others, like Maryland and California, have drafted and codified into law their own versions of this doctrine.

    This is not a new legal principle. The application of this doctrine dates back more than 400 years under English common law and at least 130 years in the United States.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds in 1878 discussed this rule in the context of a bigamy case in which the defendant refused to tell law enforcement where one of his wives was located to prevent her from being served with a subpoena. The trial court allowed into evidence prior statements from that wife concerning her marriage to the defendant. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court.


    May 21, 2008


    Peterson charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon in connection with rifle seized from his house

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    JOLIET – The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office and the Illinois State Police announce that a charge of Unlawful Use of a Weapon has been filed against Drew Walter Peterson.

    The charge alleges that the defendant “knowingly possessed a rifle, namely a Colt model Sporter Lightweight, 223 Remington rifle, Serial #SL025365 with attached EOTech electronic sight, with a barrel less than 16 inches in length” in violation of state law.

    Peterson was arrested by Illinois State Police Wednesday morning in Bolingbrook without incident on a warrant signed by Chief Judge Stephen White. The warrant carried a bond of $75,000. Peterson must post 10 percent or $7,500 to secure his release while awaiting trial.

    Unlawful Use of a Weapon is a Class 3 felony that carries a penalty of up to five years in prison upon conviction.

    The rifle was one of the guns seized during the execution of a search warrant on Peterson’s house on Nov. 1, 2007. The length of the weapon’s barrel is in violation of state law.

    A court date for Peterson to appear on this weapons charge has yet to be scheduled.

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office reminds the public that charges are not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  15. Should we have confidence in the Attorney General, imo, yes.

    I believe he may know what he’s doing.

    Then we have Brodsky and Peterson, nuff said.

    June 3, 2008


    James Glasgow named State’s Attorney of the Year by Illinois State Crime Commission

    Charles B. Pelkie
    (815) 727-8789
    (815) 530-7110 (cellular)

    JOLIET — Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow has been named State’s Attorney of the Year by the Illinois State Crime Commission and will be honored at the organization’s 12th Annual Awards Dinner at 6:30 p.m. June 11 at Drury Lane in Oakbrook Terrace.

    It is the second time in his career as Will County’s top prosecutor that State’s Attorney Glasgow has received this prestigious honor from the Illinois State Crime Commission, the first time being in 1996.

    In naming him State’s Attorney of the Year for 2008, the Crime Commission acknowledged Glasgow’s long and distinguished career, during which he has implemented groundbreaking initiatives to investigate, prosecute and prevent crime.

    “Jim Glasgow is one of the premier state’s attorneys in Illinois,” said Jerry Elsner, executive director of the Illinois State Crime Commission. “He has championed innovative strategies to aggressively prosecute criminals to protect the community, and he has worked diligently to create prevention programs that educate citizens so they know how to protect themselves.”

    Glasgow expressed his appreciation to the Illinois State Crime Commission for naming him State’s Attorney of the Year.

    “I am deeply honored that the Illinois State Crime Commission has chosen to recognize the work my office has done on behalf of the citizens of Will County,” Glasgow said. “With the backing of my dedicated staff, we have accomplished a great deal to make this county a safer place to live and work.”

    Among his accomplishments as Will County State’s Attorney, Glasgow:

    · Formed Will County’s first Gang Prosecution Unit in the early 1990s and helped to organize gang sweeps, one of which reduced local gang shootings by 250 percent and was featured on Peter Jennings’ World News Tonight.

    · Pioneered Will County’s first Specialized Domestic Violence Court, which mandated abuser counseling to break the destructive cycle of violence. In addition, his innovative Victim Independence Program has more than doubled appearances in court by victims of domestic abuse.

    · Established the Will County Children’s Advocacy Center to stop child sexual predators in their tracks. The recorded statements from children have been used in the successful prosecution of literally hundreds of child predators over the past 13 years.

    · Spearheaded the creation of the Will County Drug Court, which was selected as one of the top 10 programs in the nation. A remarkable 92 percent of the defendants who complete the program kick their addictions and remain drug-free.

    · Wrote the Animal Torture Statute, which created the first felony charge in Illinois for the abuse of animals.

    Implemented a Bad Check Restitution Program that has collected more than $1 million for local businesses in just 2-1/2 years.
    Authored several Gang Awareness and Prevention books, one of which was called “the primary primer on gangs” by the Chicago Tribune.
    Established a Crime Prevention Division that travels the county to educate citizens about gang violence, financial scams that target senior citizens, Internet safety and drug abuse prevention.
    Created a Financial Crimes Prosecution Unit whose members will investigate and prosecute complex financial crimes, particularly those in which senior citizens are the victims.
    Glasgow received his Juris Doctor from Northern Illinois Law School. He has been practicing law since 1981. He and his wife, Gina, are the proud parents of five wonderful children: four sons and a daughter. They also are the happy owners of a Great Dane and a collie.

    To obtain tickets or to receive more information about the Illinois State Crime Commission’s 12th Annual Awards Dinner, call (630) 778-9191

  16. Looking & Rescue – I’ve been lurking long enough to recognize good advice… (fingers firmly planted in my ears…) “la la la la – I can’t hear or read you – la la la” Thanks!

  17. 1tank – I like his resume too. Seems like one class act. Things will fall into place soon enough.

    Hours and hours and hours of tape.

  18. Rescue & All – Feel a little pushy posting into a tight group like you guys, but wanted to let you know it’s really kind of affirming to read your back-and forths and, as I said in my first post above, the respect with which you treat each other and differing views…even on such an emotionally charged topic. You’re a well-informed and kind group. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  19. Haven’t seen you before, coffee. Respect and civility is a good thing, even when opinions differ. Good to see you and hope you join in. It’s been so quiet lately.

  20. Oh what a nice thing to say, coffee. Don’t be timid, I just barged in and everyone has been v.v. friendly.

  21. This case has more than fascinated me from the start and with everything within the last month, it’s just too wild. It’s helped me to follow and given me much better context for understanding the unfolding events to have you guys sort through things for me. 😉

  22. rescueapet // August 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Gatehouse – Amanda is offensive, and violates the rules the rest of us follow. How about you knock her down a few pegs.

    When did you get elected to be Danya’s adviser?

    I am a member here rescue.

    I reposted what your hero posted today.

    You find ME offensive for doing so?

    That tells me what I thought was right.
    I got just the reaction I told her I’d get.

    See, you try and make me a bad guy, several of you tried tonight. Ask yourself why.

    Because you don’t like me? (that’s fine)

    Or because you don’t like yourselves for putting Lenny up on a pedestal he did not deserve simply because he fed your hate for Drew Peterson?

  23. We all have different internal resources and cultural contexts. And I can forgive someone who has put himself at considerable (CONSIDERABLE) risk over a long period of time to help LE if he now has some satisfaction from baiting DP. He is not the first person to post those lyrics. If LE have a problem with it they’ll deal with it. It’s their opinion that matters.

    I got the distinct impression (I was right! You owe me a coffee!) that you did it to cause trouble.

  24. Coffee- that is exactly the reason I had to post.

    She seems to be a troublemaker.

    I really like this blog because usually there is not all of the nastiness.

  25. We don’t know what Len has been through. Until we walk in his shoes we don’t know.

    I can’t imagine how unnerving it had to be for he and Paula during those 7 months.

  26. Hi gurly 🙂 Welcome.


    I saw you appeal to Basherette earlier…boy, she has really been on my mind today. Miss her.

  27. I believe we all have our individual intelligence to decide what, where and when we read something and how we deal with it.

    Not everyone needs to shove their opinions down others throats and stomp their feet when others don’t pat them on the back.

    I definitely don’t need anyone to “save” me, thank you very much 😛

  28. LE knew what and who Lenny was when they approached him and used him for their purposes. It was no secret to them what his life was all about.

    Lenny can stick pins in dolls and practice voodoo for all I care.

  29. gatehousechicago // August 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    the comment in question has been deleted. for clarity’s sake, we also deleted those that refer to it.

    You’re a doll, thanks for soing that.

    So… admittedly, everyone found it awful?

    But some are still hanging on to the Len-hope?

  30. OK, amanda – I bow to your power – you ARE the Great and Powerful Oz.

    However, there are not song lyrics in the world which can dim my admiration for persons who puts themselves in danger to help in the investigation of a double-murderer.

    (Go Lenny! Go Paula! Go Lenny! Go Paula!)

  31. Great and Power Oz? LOL. If I remember correctly, you are not to pay attention to that man behind the curtain, right????????????????

  32. coffeeocity, that is just silly. I have no power.

    I would have agreed to the hero worship *IF* there had been no “Ashley” and *IF* there had been no raunchy blog, raunchy pictures, raunchy everything, about these Springerish people.

    I am all for DP getting what he deserves, because I do think he did it. Both.

    I just do not think this is a respectable way to go about it.

    I do not think there is any honor for Kathleen nor for Stacy in the way the players in this case conduct themselves.

    That’s all.

  33. I thought I heard a voice coming from behind a curtain….

    Nope. Just “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

  34. I understand admiration for someone putting themselves in danger to help the investigation.

    I do not understand the posting of carp like that.


    😀 Guess we’ll have to stop talking about it or Gatehouse will have to delete more posts! Sorry! 😉

  35. I thought you were pretending to not know what deleted post I was refering to and that’s what you “what” meant …

    To explain, I think Lenny and Paula did a good thing by wearing wires. I don’t know whether I could have done it and not just blown the whole thing by peeing my pants when Drew whispered in my ear.

    But I don’t see the point of LENNY posting posts like the one we are not discussing. 😉

    I’m trying to tell myself there has to be a reason that LE continues to let the site exist … but I cannot figure out what that could be. JMO

  36. I think if LE thought Lenny’s postings at any site in any form could harm the investigation, they would certainly let him know.

    That sort of post is in no way appealing and in most ways disgusting, but if it keeps Lenny’s head from exploding – or prevents him from going after DP physically, I’ll let the First Amendment do its job.

  37. My opinion – what Lenny does now on a keyboard is cookies and mild compared to what Peterson is suspected of doing. The End!

  38. I’ll let the First Amendment do its job.

    I think that is what LE is doing, as well.

  39. well, has it calmed down a bit now?

    I just finished watching Nancy Grace and it is so sad
    about the missing little girl. I don’t know what to think of all of it.

  40. It makes me wonder whether Ric Mimms actually was made to shut his site down by LE … as he implied.

    And speaking of Ric, he must be busy making goo goo sounds at his little granddaughter … oh what a cutie!

    I see his site is still shut down …

    And yes, I get the First Amendment point. I’ve tried to just stay away from that site completely but it has been so slow … I did stray!

    And I did issue a challenge here the other day, I suppose … post something new or shut ‘er down … 🙄

    Me and my big ?fingers? !

  41. You know, noway, when there was that big hulabaloo about the Ric Mims site, it was when he was about to post his version of the timeline. I don’t know if you recall or not, but he had mentioned that he was getting his thoughts together, and would be posting things as he remembered them. Right about then is when LE paid his webmaster a visit, and his site went down.

    So, what Lenny’s doing is goofy, but not destructive and giving out secret information. He is the same Lenny now as he was when he was wearing the wire. If he had to act “normal” with Drew, I’m sure his personality will be shining through on those tapes. Heh?

  42. I’m just afraid that Lenny WILL give out secret information, I guess.

    I just hate that witnesses, key players, and lawyers are blogging.

    IMO they shouldn’t be. It just bothers me. I’ll just need to get over it I guess. 😉

  43. Then again, how can we be sure it IS Lenny?


    Sure, the poster is posting under the name Ashlen … but ya really never know who that is NOW. 😉

  44. It’s the way of the times, the Internet, blogs, forums. You have to kind of remember, too, that what you’re seeing now is probably going to dry up when Peterson is charged. Cameras are not allowed in the court room, so any information at hearings and pretrials is going to come solely through news reports. Brodsky isn’t going to be sharing his defense publicly, and, of course, neither is law enforcement.

    I suppose, though, each side will let out in leaks what they want the public to hear that’s favorable to their side, but nothing like what’s been going on now with Peterson and Brodsky. LE has been, for the most part, quiet all along, so that’s not going to change much.

  45. Hey Amanda…how come my account at kimmer’s forum has been disabled…I hardly ever posted and never did anything to warrant a banning!…all I do is read most everywhere! – RF

  46. maybe cause you did not post over there is proubly why , sometimes when no postings it becomes inactive .. and if that happend they will disable the account..

    HEY NOWAY LOL——-is laptop better knowlol


    Will County Board not rushing to decision on medical examiner

    August 12, 2008 Recommend

    The Herald News
    JOLIET —

    The County Board hasn’t made up its mind about a medical examiner.

    Although the members have discussed the issue at length at three different public meetings – one of them featuring famed New York forensic pathologist Michael Baden as a speaker – the board usually moves very, very slowly.

    The members of the county’s executive committee were supposed to decide during their Thursday meeting if there should be a November referendum asking voters if they want to dump the coroner system in favor of a medical examiner. But that didn’t happen. After a brief discussion on the issue Thursday, County Board Chairman Jim Moustis, R-Frankfort, said there should be one more meeting.

    The mistaken ruling in Kathleen Savio’s death – first declared an accident in 2004, then declared a homicide after she was exhumed late last year – prompted the Will County Board to consider a switch from coroner to medical examiner.

    “Let’s decide it as a board and put it to rest,” Moustis said.
    So he scheduled a 9 a.m. Monday public meeting of the full County Board. It will be held at the county office building, 302 N. Chicago St., Joliet. Will County residents who are interested in the issue are invited, too.

    The Republican members of the County Board first talked during a March 20 caucus held at a Joliet restaurant about the possibility of having death probes done by a medical examiner instead of the elected coroner. Medical examiners are physicians and might be better trained and equipped to handle complicated cases, they said.

    Will County Coroner Patrick K. O’Neil, a popular Democrat, is running for re-election in November against Republican Chuck Lyons, a former deputy coroner.

    If the county switches to a medical examiner, that person would be chosen rather than elected.

    During the Thursday meeting, board member Wayne McMillan, R-Bolingbrook, began the discussion. “I’ve lived in Bolingbrook for 38 years,” he said. “Obviously the Kathleen Savio situation up there has disturbed and frustrated a lot of my constituents … and they are angry.”

    On March 1, 2004, Savio, 40, was found dead in a dry bathtub at her Bolingbrook home. She was the third wife of Drew Peterson, now 54, a former Bolingbrook police officer.

    Water was found in Savio’s sinuses, there was a cut on the back of her head and her hair was drenched in blood. At the inquest, a Will County coroner’s jury decided she died accidentally.

    But that changed three years later. In October, Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, then 23, vanished. That prompted authorities to take another look at the mysterious bathtub death.

    Savio’s body was exhumed, there were new autopsies, and experts eventually decided that the coroner’s jury was wrong. Savio actually was the victim of a homicide.

    “Unfortunately, the perception in my area is the coroner is being seen as an unnecessary link – and sometimes a barrier – between the (forensic) pathologist and the police,” McMillan said. “(Savio’s death) is just a situation we never should have been involved in.”

    Moustis asked Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe, head of the civil division, to research the recent changes in Illinois law controlling the coroner system. She will present the information at Monday’s meeting.

    The full board will vote on the referendum issue during the Aug. 21 regular meeting.

    Sun-Times News Group

  48. RF, you aren’t banned. No one was banned.

    Unless it was a multiple nic, I set a multi-nic deletion.

    Maybe a proboards glitch, or maybe we went for dinner and forgot to put it on auto-pilot.

    Who knows.

  49. amandareckonwith // August 12, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    RF, you aren’t banned. No one was banned.

    Unless it was a multiple nic, I set a multi-nic deletion.

    Maybe a proboards glitch, or maybe we went for dinner and forgot to put it on auto-pilot.

    Who knows.
    Well so much for my multiple personalities posting there! 😉

  50. NOWAY, this is specifically to address your concern you posted earlier

    I have been given this transcription of an interview of Thomas Glasgow, done by the very awesome and wonderful

    YouTube (07/24/2008) by “glawus” (2:33 min)


    Schaumburg defense attorney Thomas Glasgow discusses Drew Peterson and wiretapping on ABC 7 News Chicago (July 24, 2008).

    (Transcribed by

    JUDY HSU (ABC7 NEWS): Now more on our top local story today, the Drew Peterson case is back in the spotlight once again after longtime friends of his say they wore a wire. Paula Stark and her husband Len Wawczak say they recorded conversations with Peterson and say he spoke to them about his missing wife Stacy and dead wife Kathleen. Former Cook County States Attorney Thomas Glasgow is now a criminal defense attorney in private practice and he joins us this morning to talk more about wiretaps and I had so many questions for you. So how do they get authority to do something like that? It is completely legal what they did?

    THOMAS GLASGOW, ATTORNEY: It is completely legal, if the states, excuse me, if the police go to and advise the states attorney what they want to do and they go and petition the judge of the district, the chief judge of the district to authorize an order to do the eavesdropping and then they can wear the wire, the wire is used in the course of the investigation, it has to be renewed from time to time in order to show that the felony or the crime is still being committed or evidence can still be induced from the (??) over hear.

    JUDY HSU: Did it surprise you that investigators went this route?

    THOMAS GLASGOW, ATTORNEY: No, in fact that is where you get your best evidence from people who are closest to the defendant when they sit down and talk with the defendant, the words of the defendant are the most powerful evidence you can have against the defendant.

    JUDY HSU: Completely admissible in court?

    THOMAS GLASGOW, ATTORNEY: It’s admissible in court, it’s a statement by the defendant that is said by him against his interest, additionally the fact that they wore a wire and the fact that it was court authorized gives the permission of the court in the statues in order for it to be admissible in court.

    JUDY HSU: And questions have been raised about the couple now talking to the media, is that a crime? Are they doing anything wrong?

    THOMAS GLASGOW, ATTORNEY: There’s nothing really wrong with what they know, I would be upset with them if I was investigating this and if I was the police and I’m sure the police are not very happy with them about coming forward talking about this, however it’s not a crime for them to divulge what they know.It is a crime, however for someone and it is in violation of the eavesdropping statue for someone to discuss what they have learned as a result of the eavesdropping, other words if they had heard this through the eavesdropping then in another words through the electronic devise and then turn around and disseminate that is in violation. But the direct conversation even though it’s being overheard at the same time is not a violation.

    JUDY HSU: Thank you Thomas Glasgow for sharing your information on the Drew Peterson case.


    The above I believe, is Jennifer Schoon’s Attorney, ex-girlfriend of Steve Peterson, who testified at the grand jury last week.


    United States Code:


  51. It is a crime, however for someone and it is in violation of the eavesdropping statue for someone to discuss what they have learned as a result of the eavesdropping, other words if they had heard this through the eavesdropping then in another words through the electronic devise and then turn around and disseminate that is in violation. But the direct conversation even though it’s being overheard at the same time is not a violation.
    I’m sorry but that is as clear as mud. 😀

    And everytime I think I get what he meant, I realize I don’t.

    I’m just in favor of everyone directly involved in the case in using a little more restraint in talking to the media (sorry Gatehouse!) and in blogging.

  52. NOWAY:

    To clarify:
    What he’s saying here is that anybody who listens to the eavesdropping conversations can not reveal what they heard BUT his last sentence is, “But the direct conversation even though it’s being overheard at the same time is not a violation”

    What he’s saying is that *IF* Lenny and Paula heard all of what they heard directly from the eavesdropping (that is, sitting there listening to the tapes playing etc.) then that is in violation if they talk about it *BUT* what they heard directly from Peterson’s mouth *AS* he was talking and *AS* it was being recorded at the same time is not a violation.

    This is exactly why LE or LE sources can’t LEAK any of this themselves or they would be in violation because they would be repeating what they heard on the tapes. Lenny and Paula, on the other hand heard it direct from Peterson’s lips and can talk about it even though they are being very selective on what information they are leaking. As Lenny said to Fox News, it’s to rattle Drew’s cage.

  53. HEY NOWAY YOU EXCAPED LOL you disappeared and well ya know , he was waiting fer ya … teehee…. I said ya cot blown off by noway lol…

Comments are closed.